There are studies that show traveling below the average highway speed increases risks of accidents even if it's above the speed limit.
You do realize that you also asserted that speeding causes accidents? The premise of your argument is that the majority of the drivers on the road speed, and therefore when they encounter someone going the speed limit there is a chance of colliding with the slower car or having to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid colliding with the slower car.
It's a nice spin for an attempt to justify speeding. In the end it still means that speeding is involved in those accidents. Using your premise, I could also conclude that if more people honored the speed limit the likelihood of such accidents is lowered. The underling theory being that a mismatch in speed between vehicles increases the likelihood of an accident. Therefore if people didn't speed they would lower the population of mismatched vehicle speeds and therefore lower the probability of accidents resulting from those mismatches.
Another source of accidents is people going significantly slower than the speed limit on limited access highways (ie. interstates / freeways). Those are also addressed by law enforcement that issue citations for not driving at the minimum posted speed limit.
Actually I was talking about the SUV models that the IIHS specifically cited in their 5 mph rear collision test with a light pole.
The results were:
Between 1999 and 2003, out of the 10 most expensive SUVs to fix from that same crash test (that we could find records on) as tested by the IIHS, 7 of them had the spare tire hanging on the end gate. Those vehicles (and the damage they sustained) included the Isuzu Trooper ($3,317), Mitsubishi Montero ($2,961), Toyota RAV4 ($2,719), Honda CR-V (2.727), Land Rover Freelander ($2,096), Suzuki Grand Vitara XL-7 ($2,175) and the Jeep Liberty ($1,627). Brian O’Neill of the IIHS probably said it best: “SUVs may be advertised as rugged. Manufacturers tell potential buyers they can drive these vehicles anywhere adventure leads them. But consumers can expect big repair bills if they're unlucky enough to bump these so-called rugged vehicles into something at slow speeds."
It shows you can't trust studies from Insurance companies: "A few studies show a decrease in accidents, funded by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group for the insurance industry. Insurers tend to profit from red light cameras, because revenues go up with increased citations and accidents." - They also profit by claiming speeding is dangerous when it's not the speeders that cause accidents (it's the reckless lane changers that drive like it's a race).
Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim. In order to prevent these payouts, insurance companies routinely look for ways to make improvements in safety and survivability in crashes. The IIHS not only encourage better law enforcement in order to lower the number of careless drivers, they also lobby against bad automotive designs like those spare tires that hang on the back of SUVs which causes large dollar amount damages if the SUV was involved in a parking lot fender bender.
This isn't some shadowy conspiracy group. It just so happens that what benefits the insurance companies also benefit us.
As for your other assertions, I haven't seen any data that explicitly states that speeding is safe. I have seen data that shows that speeding is one of the causes listed for auto accidents. Insurance companies profit from red light cameras because the total of accidents at intersections is predicted to go down which lowers the amount of money they have to pay out. They get way more profit from not having to pay on an auto policy during that fiscal year than they could ever collect from that single driver with a higher insurance rate. Not to mention, higher insurance rates occur after the insurance company paid a claim and therefore this higher rate is used to not only compensate for a loss in investment (it is a numbers game) but also apparent increase in risk. My auto insurance policy does not automatically increase in cost after an accident. My daughter totaled one of my cars, so I am thankful for that. Anyway, I just don't see how this "red light conspiracy" could even be profitable.
The only way Nintendo knows how to distinguish itself from the crowd these days is with unconventional controllers. The Wii had nunchucks with tracking, and now the Wii U has a huge touchscreen controller.
As we speak comments from the Apple Lovers and Haters are filling up comment sections everywhere. Also bloggers are coming up with more flametastic headlines to lure your eyeball to their website.
Enjoy it while you can since it lasts... well... Never mind it's a regular occurrence here on Slashdot:P
People die, drugs or not, the previous person may be wrong in his statement, but you are equally wrong for your implication that drugs are the only reason people attack one another.
Where did I say that drugs are the only reason people attack one another? Oh I didn't.
The original premise was "Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting? NO! they're all like peace bro!". My complete answer that negates the grandparent's post that drugs would prevent violence was "My brother-in-law was 16 when he was murdered by an acquaintance who was high on drugs at the time." That's it. Nothing more was said. No "drugs is the cause of all deaths" or any other delusional thing you can come up with.
I don't go around looking for an excuse to mention my brother-in-law. In fact whenever I think of him, I feel pretty melancholy. Also when someone states a ludicrous hypothesis that runs counter to my personal experience, I feel no remorse on not only disagreeing with him but bringing up the exact reason why. It's not an attempt to "one up" anybody, it just a fact. I kept it short and to the point.
It's not my alleged faux pas of bringing up my brother-in-law that has you upset. You're angry because I made you uncomfortable. How dare I make you feel guilty for your views on drugs. You don't want anyone to humanize the topic. You want to keep it antiseptic, clinical, or just plain hypothetical. That way you can have your vice and tell yourself that there isn't really any consequences to your beliefs. No need to get your hands dirty.
You've twice created a new topic to base your argument on. First you attacked my feelings toward my brother-in-law, and now you fabricated a premise that I don't even have. Is that how you make yourself feel better? Who is the one with the ego?
I have to admit that I originally was a little angry at you. I interpreted your comment as a personal attack. Now I just feel sorry for you. Grasping at straws just prove me wrong. Poor Nihn. He's obviously passionate and is desperate to win this argument.
So just to be clear you don't claim that drugs make people violent?
It would be more accurate to say that I don't believe that drugs would make people LESS violent.
I think the topic of violence being caused by the drug itself is complex and hard to justify by statistics alone. If a person has a potential for violence then the drug may be the enabler for him to commit violence. The drug may not be the root cause of the violence but it can be the trigger.
Let me try to illustrate my view. For example, an alcoholic doesn't beat his wife because beer made him evil. He always had the potential to beat his wife, but under the influence of alcohol he lacked the better judgement to not hit his wife. It is also a fact that not all beer drinkers beat their wife.
Violence could result from an adverse reaction to a drug. The person may become delusional and lash out in fear. In documented cases of some prescription drugs adverse reactions include thoughts of suicide or severe changes in mood (we are talking about brain chemistry here). To add to the complexity, the chances for these adverse reactions are present in only certain types of drugs while others the risk may be much lower or practically nil.
I don't think the potential of drugs causing violence is zero. Suffice it to say, I feel more confident in saying that I do not believe drugs would make people less violent.
Is "emotionally compromised" a derogatory term for having a life experience that makes it harder for you to convince me to agree with you?
Other than my post what evidence do you have to back up your claim?
Let's assume you supported the legalization of all drugs. Did I mention a position for or against the legalization of drugs? No.
I think it's ridiculous that people are quick to condemn me for answering the grandparent's question, yet take the premise that the use of drugs would miraculously keep people from committing violence. A fact that anybody who has been around drugs would find very hard to believe.
Now if we talked about legalizing drugs, what would you expect my opinion to be?
Do I think legalizing all drugs is a good idea? No. I think some drugs are more dangerous than others.
Do I think marijuana should be legalized? Yes but only if it was legal for someone to grow their own. Why? Because in my opinion legalizing marijuana without legalizing home growing can make matters worse. We would reward the drug lords by increasing their available market and we artificially make the weed scarce by allowing only licensed growers. There is a chance that we would spend as much money regulating the new market than we spent preventing it, since I don't expect the current drug lords to willingly give up their market share. Not to mention that the only way we can truly argue that legalizing marijuana would lower drug related crime is to devalue the commodity by making it readily available to those who want it. Also if California is any indication, regulations on marijuana use would be easily circumvented anyway. Is it possible to not get a prescription for marijuana?
So now that I veered completely off the original topic, does my life experience match your expectations of my position on drug legalization? Have I not demonstrated the ability to have a reasoned discussion about the topic at hand?
Careful! You may give some conservative blogger evidence that the war on drugs is actually working. You just admitted that the over whelming majority of people who have a tendency to commit crime were not using illegal drugs at the time. Also since the cause for the majority of incarcerations aren't drug related then the war of drugs isn't placing an undue burden on our prison system.
DISCLAIMER: For the humorless - this was a joke. I am not a blogger (well not at this very moment) and the conservatives won't invite me to their social gatherings. Also this was an evil use of logic that should only be done by professional politicians, lobbyists and bloggers.:P
That same comment had "Whilst I have every sympathy with your situation, there are exceptions to every rule and quoting one case as evidence against a general theory serves nobody well.".
The problem with your "Correlation vs. Causation" comment is that it does not apply here. I didn't have to prove that drugs were the cause of the violence. I only had to give examples that applied directly to the grandparent's question:
Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting?
I only had to provide evidence that I wasn't the single case that could answer the question in the affirmative.
the numbers your quoting includes alcohol and prescription drugs, not just illegal drugs.
That may be true, but how does that counter my answer to the original question that was posed by the grandparent ("Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting?") ?
If you really cared about your brother in law you would NEVER use his passing as a tool in an argument...
Bullshit. So you're advocating that victims should remain silent?
First of all the parent post asked "Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting? NO! they're all like peace bro!"
So I answered yes by using my brother-in-law as an example. It's not like I mentioned his name or started a PSA featuring his image. People who use that bullshit argument are upset that they can't counter a real life example. As for caring for my brother-in-law, that's my business not yours. Technically speaking the parent asked a specific question and I gave a specific answer.
How dare you judge me? I didn't condemn the person that asked that question, nor am I attacking the people who disagree with my post except for you.
Sure I see a lot of typical armchair debating tactics being used: "Correlation vs. Causation", "Single case observed vs. peer review study", etc. Unfortunately for ALL of us, the answer is still "Yes I have experienced a loss due to violence directly contributed by the use of an illegal drug."
How about BJS, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997?
Percentage of State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at time of their offense, 1997
Federal Prison Inmates:
Violent offenses: 24.5% of which:
Murder: 29.4% of which there were too few cases to permit calculation for negligent manslaughter
Sexual assault: 7.9%
Robbery: 27.8%
Assault: 13.8%
Other: 15.9%
State Prison Inmates:
Violent offenses: 29.0% of which:
Murder: 26.8% of which 17% were negligent manslaughter
Sexual assault: 21.5%
Robbery: 39.9%
Assault: 24.2%
Other: 29.0%
Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting? NO! they're all like peace bro! I think drugs might be a social service!:P but seriously drugs don't kill people, people kill people!
My brother-in-law was 16 when he was murdered by an acquaintance who was high on drugs at the time.
Yes.. I do not traffic in drugs, weapons, or illegal aliens across international borders which is what the parent was obviously talking about.
Yet I actually have transported guns, liquor, and relatives and friends across state line. It was called "Let's go to grandpa's house to shoot guns and drink some beer and whiskey afterwards."
Try to bring weapons, drugs, or people, across state lines, and tell me if you think free trade actually exists.
I think you meant international borders not state lines. I have relatives that live in a neighboring state and I never had problems transporting liquor, rifles, or relatives between the states. Now I remember a time when the state troopers were confiscating lottery tickets that were purchased in a neighboring state, but that shenanigans ended over a decade ago.
I'm sure there are rules concerning the amounts and frequency that liquor or rifles cross that state line, but I assume the state police have more important things to worry about.
Of course it could be illegal, but I haven't got caught yet. I'll play it safe from now on and leave the relatives at home.
While that may be the case that isn't the topic of this article. Orbitz wants to force American Airlines to offer their fares through their travel site. Orbitz is not purchasing the fares and offering them for resale. They are brokering the sale and collecting a commission.
Even if this wasn't the case, I find it troubling that the government can force someone to sale their goods and services as wholesale to other retailers.
You may have missed the news: Microsoft was found guilty, and the antitrust oversight last for a few years.
It looks like you may have missed the news that the ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Afterwards the DOJ announced they were going to seek a lesser antitrust penalty. On November 2, 2001 the DOJ settled with Microsoft which required that Microsoft publish its API. This weak settlement was probably due to the DOJ was under a new administration (Clinton was no longer in office) and Microsoft was in need to shorten a costly court case that started in 1998.
Also you overlooked a key part of the court case. This case was mainly about Microsoft bundling their Internet Explorer with Windows which gave it unfair competitive advantage over Netscape and Opera. In addition, Microsoft was using a secret API that allowed Internet Explorer perform better than any third party browser.
The part of the ruling that dealt with monopolistic behavior with OEMs was overturned in the appeal due to the plaintiffs not being able to make a credible case.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that you also asserted that speeding causes accidents? The premise of your argument is that the majority of the drivers on the road speed, and therefore when they encounter someone going the speed limit there is a chance of colliding with the slower car or having to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid colliding with the slower car.
It's a nice spin for an attempt to justify speeding. In the end it still means that speeding is involved in those accidents. Using your premise, I could also conclude that if more people honored the speed limit the likelihood of such accidents is lowered. The underling theory being that a mismatch in speed between vehicles increases the likelihood of an accident. Therefore if people didn't speed they would lower the population of mismatched vehicle speeds and therefore lower the probability of accidents resulting from those mismatches.
Another source of accidents is people going significantly slower than the speed limit on limited access highways (ie. interstates / freeways). Those are also addressed by law enforcement that issue citations for not driving at the minimum posted speed limit.
Actually I was talking about the SUV models that the IIHS specifically cited in their 5 mph rear collision test with a light pole.
The results were:
Between 1999 and 2003, out of the 10 most expensive SUVs to fix from that same crash test (that we could find records on) as tested by the IIHS, 7 of them had the spare tire hanging on the end gate. Those vehicles (and the damage they sustained) included the Isuzu Trooper ($3,317), Mitsubishi Montero ($2,961), Toyota RAV4 ($2,719), Honda CR-V (2.727), Land Rover Freelander ($2,096), Suzuki Grand Vitara XL-7 ($2,175) and the Jeep Liberty ($1,627). Brian O’Neill of the IIHS probably said it best: “SUVs may be advertised as rugged. Manufacturers tell potential buyers they can drive these vehicles anywhere adventure leads them. But consumers can expect big repair bills if they're unlucky enough to bump these so-called rugged vehicles into something at slow speeds."
As for your particular case, the IIHS actually spoke out about the lack of bumpers or mismatched bumpers on those SUVs.
Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim. In order to prevent these payouts, insurance companies routinely look for ways to make improvements in safety and survivability in crashes. The IIHS not only encourage better law enforcement in order to lower the number of careless drivers, they also lobby against bad automotive designs like those spare tires that hang on the back of SUVs which causes large dollar amount damages if the SUV was involved in a parking lot fender bender.
This isn't some shadowy conspiracy group. It just so happens that what benefits the insurance companies also benefit us.
As for your other assertions, I haven't seen any data that explicitly states that speeding is safe. I have seen data that shows that speeding is one of the causes listed for auto accidents. Insurance companies profit from red light cameras because the total of accidents at intersections is predicted to go down which lowers the amount of money they have to pay out. They get way more profit from not having to pay on an auto policy during that fiscal year than they could ever collect from that single driver with a higher insurance rate. Not to mention, higher insurance rates occur after the insurance company paid a claim and therefore this higher rate is used to not only compensate for a loss in investment (it is a numbers game) but also apparent increase in risk. My auto insurance policy does not automatically increase in cost after an accident. My daughter totaled one of my cars, so I am thankful for that. Anyway, I just don't see how this "red light conspiracy" could even be profitable.
I was hoping that you'd say that you always laugh openly and invite others to fork off their own version of laughter.
The only way Nintendo knows how to distinguish itself from the crowd these days is with unconventional controllers. The Wii had nunchucks with tracking, and now the Wii U has a huge touchscreen controller.
As we speak comments from the Apple Lovers and Haters are filling up comment sections everywhere. Also bloggers are coming up with more flametastic headlines to lure your eyeball to their website.
Enjoy it while you can since it lasts... well... Never mind it's a regular occurrence here on Slashdot :P
Where did I say that drugs are the only reason people attack one another? Oh I didn't.
The original premise was "Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting? NO! they're all like peace bro!". My complete answer that negates the grandparent's post that drugs would prevent violence was "My brother-in-law was 16 when he was murdered by an acquaintance who was high on drugs at the time." That's it. Nothing more was said. No "drugs is the cause of all deaths" or any other delusional thing you can come up with.
I don't go around looking for an excuse to mention my brother-in-law. In fact whenever I think of him, I feel pretty melancholy. Also when someone states a ludicrous hypothesis that runs counter to my personal experience, I feel no remorse on not only disagreeing with him but bringing up the exact reason why. It's not an attempt to "one up" anybody, it just a fact. I kept it short and to the point.
It's not my alleged faux pas of bringing up my brother-in-law that has you upset. You're angry because I made you uncomfortable. How dare I make you feel guilty for your views on drugs. You don't want anyone to humanize the topic. You want to keep it antiseptic, clinical, or just plain hypothetical. That way you can have your vice and tell yourself that there isn't really any consequences to your beliefs. No need to get your hands dirty.
You've twice created a new topic to base your argument on. First you attacked my feelings toward my brother-in-law, and now you fabricated a premise that I don't even have. Is that how you make yourself feel better? Who is the one with the ego?
I have to admit that I originally was a little angry at you. I interpreted your comment as a personal attack. Now I just feel sorry for you. Grasping at straws just prove me wrong. Poor Nihn. He's obviously passionate and is desperate to win this argument.
It would be more accurate to say that I don't believe that drugs would make people LESS violent.
I think the topic of violence being caused by the drug itself is complex and hard to justify by statistics alone. If a person has a potential for violence then the drug may be the enabler for him to commit violence. The drug may not be the root cause of the violence but it can be the trigger.
Let me try to illustrate my view. For example, an alcoholic doesn't beat his wife because beer made him evil. He always had the potential to beat his wife, but under the influence of alcohol he lacked the better judgement to not hit his wife. It is also a fact that not all beer drinkers beat their wife.
Violence could result from an adverse reaction to a drug. The person may become delusional and lash out in fear. In documented cases of some prescription drugs adverse reactions include thoughts of suicide or severe changes in mood (we are talking about brain chemistry here). To add to the complexity, the chances for these adverse reactions are present in only certain types of drugs while others the risk may be much lower or practically nil.
I don't think the potential of drugs causing violence is zero. Suffice it to say, I feel more confident in saying that I do not believe drugs would make people less violent.
Is "emotionally compromised" a derogatory term for having a life experience that makes it harder for you to convince me to agree with you?
Other than my post what evidence do you have to back up your claim?
Let's assume you supported the legalization of all drugs. Did I mention a position for or against the legalization of drugs? No.
I think it's ridiculous that people are quick to condemn me for answering the grandparent's question, yet take the premise that the use of drugs would miraculously keep people from committing violence. A fact that anybody who has been around drugs would find very hard to believe.
Now if we talked about legalizing drugs, what would you expect my opinion to be?
Do I think legalizing all drugs is a good idea? No. I think some drugs are more dangerous than others.
Do I think marijuana should be legalized? Yes but only if it was legal for someone to grow their own. Why? Because in my opinion legalizing marijuana without legalizing home growing can make matters worse. We would reward the drug lords by increasing their available market and we artificially make the weed scarce by allowing only licensed growers. There is a chance that we would spend as much money regulating the new market than we spent preventing it, since I don't expect the current drug lords to willingly give up their market share. Not to mention that the only way we can truly argue that legalizing marijuana would lower drug related crime is to devalue the commodity by making it readily available to those who want it. Also if California is any indication, regulations on marijuana use would be easily circumvented anyway. Is it possible to not get a prescription for marijuana?
So now that I veered completely off the original topic, does my life experience match your expectations of my position on drug legalization? Have I not demonstrated the ability to have a reasoned discussion about the topic at hand?
Or I countered that I wasn't the single case.
Careful! You may give some conservative blogger evidence that the war on drugs is actually working. You just admitted that the over whelming majority of people who have a tendency to commit crime were not using illegal drugs at the time. Also since the cause for the majority of incarcerations aren't drug related then the war of drugs isn't placing an undue burden on our prison system.
DISCLAIMER: For the humorless - this was a joke. I am not a blogger (well not at this very moment) and the conservatives won't invite me to their social gatherings. Also this was an evil use of logic that should only be done by professional politicians, lobbyists and bloggers. :P
How would legalizing drugs change the answer to "Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting?" ?
How does the possibly that some cases included in the study may involve inappropriate use of a legal substance affect the correctness of my answer?
That same comment had "Whilst I have every sympathy with your situation, there are exceptions to every rule and quoting one case as evidence against a general theory serves nobody well.".
I didn't imply causation. You inferred it :P
The problem with your "Correlation vs. Causation" comment is that it does not apply here. I didn't have to prove that drugs were the cause of the violence. I only had to give examples that applied directly to the grandparent's question:
I only had to provide evidence that I wasn't the single case that could answer the question in the affirmative.
That may be true, but how does that counter my answer to the original question that was posed by the grandparent ("Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting?") ?
And how exactly does your argument counter my answer to the original question which was:
?
The only thing I am saying is that evidently I'm not the only person who could answer yes to the grandparent's question of
Bullshit. So you're advocating that victims should remain silent?
First of all the parent post asked "Have you ever seen a dude high on on some drug fighting? NO! they're all like peace bro!"
So I answered yes by using my brother-in-law as an example. It's not like I mentioned his name or started a PSA featuring his image. People who use that bullshit argument are upset that they can't counter a real life example. As for caring for my brother-in-law, that's my business not yours. Technically speaking the parent asked a specific question and I gave a specific answer.
How dare you judge me? I didn't condemn the person that asked that question, nor am I attacking the people who disagree with my post except for you.
Sure I see a lot of typical armchair debating tactics being used: "Correlation vs. Causation", "Single case observed vs. peer review study", etc. Unfortunately for ALL of us, the answer is still "Yes I have experienced a loss due to violence directly contributed by the use of an illegal drug."
How about BJS, Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997?
Percentage of State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at time of their offense, 1997
Federal Prison Inmates:
Violent offenses: 24.5% of which:
Murder: 29.4% of which there were too few cases to permit calculation for negligent manslaughter
Sexual assault: 7.9%
Robbery: 27.8%
Assault: 13.8%
Other: 15.9%
State Prison Inmates:
Violent offenses: 29.0% of which:
Murder: 26.8% of which 17% were negligent manslaughter
Sexual assault: 21.5%
Robbery: 39.9%
Assault: 24.2%
Other: 29.0%
Feel free to Google more up-to-date statistics.
My brother-in-law was 16 when he was murdered by an acquaintance who was high on drugs at the time.
Yes.. I do not traffic in drugs, weapons, or illegal aliens across international borders which is what the parent was obviously talking about.
Yet I actually have transported guns, liquor, and relatives and friends across state line. It was called "Let's go to grandpa's house to shoot guns and drink some beer and whiskey afterwards."
:P
Lucky for me, I live in the southeastern US. So this isn't much of an issue for me.
I think you meant international borders not state lines. I have relatives that live in a neighboring state and I never had problems transporting liquor, rifles, or relatives between the states. Now I remember a time when the state troopers were confiscating lottery tickets that were purchased in a neighboring state, but that shenanigans ended over a decade ago.
I'm sure there are rules concerning the amounts and frequency that liquor or rifles cross that state line, but I assume the state police have more important things to worry about.
Of course it could be illegal, but I haven't got caught yet. I'll play it safe from now on and leave the relatives at home.
While that may be the case that isn't the topic of this article. Orbitz wants to force American Airlines to offer their fares through their travel site. Orbitz is not purchasing the fares and offering them for resale. They are brokering the sale and collecting a commission.
Even if this wasn't the case, I find it troubling that the government can force someone to sale their goods and services as wholesale to other retailers.
It looks like you may have missed the news that the ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Afterwards the DOJ announced they were going to seek a lesser antitrust penalty. On November 2, 2001 the DOJ settled with Microsoft which required that Microsoft publish its API. This weak settlement was probably due to the DOJ was under a new administration (Clinton was no longer in office) and Microsoft was in need to shorten a costly court case that started in 1998.
Also you overlooked a key part of the court case. This case was mainly about Microsoft bundling their Internet Explorer with Windows which gave it unfair competitive advantage over Netscape and Opera. In addition, Microsoft was using a secret API that allowed Internet Explorer perform better than any third party browser.
The part of the ruling that dealt with monopolistic behavior with OEMs was overturned in the appeal due to the plaintiffs not being able to make a credible case.